Jump to content

Kidd v. Pearson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bender the Bot (talk | contribs) at 12:06, 27 June 2017 (HTTP→HTTPS for SCOTUS, Oyez Project and Cornell Law, per BRFA 8 using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kidd v. Pearson
Argued April 4, 1888
Decided October 22, 1888
Full case nameJ. S. Kidd v. I. E. Pearson
Citations128 U.S. 1 (more)
9 S. Ct. 6; 32 L. Ed. 346; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2193
Case history
PriorError to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa
SubsequentNone
Holding
There is no conflict and the state law is valid. The Court erected a distinction between manufacture and commerce. The state law regulated manufacturing only. A broad view of commerce that embraces manufacturing would also embrace the power to regulate "every branch of human industry."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
Stanley Matthews · Horace Gray
Samuel Blatchford · Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityLamar, joined by Miller, Field, Bradley, Harlan, Matthews, Gray, Blatchford
Fuller took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Background

An Iowa state law made the manufacturing of liquor in Iowa illegal, even though the liquor was being sold out-of-state.

Question before the Supreme Court

Is there a conflict between the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Decision of the Court

The court ruled that there was not a conflict between Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce and the state law. Therefore, the law was valid.[1][2]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 17 January 2014.
  2. ^ "Kidd v. Pearson - 128 U.S. 1 (1888)". Retrieved 17 January 2014.

Further reading

  • Fedora, H. Appleton (1940). "The Commerce Clause, the State's Police Power and Intoxicating Liquors". Kentucky Law Journal. 29: 66. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)